Here is a photo of director Kathryn Bigelow at the Los Angeles premiere of her latest film, Zero Dark Thirty. She’s such a confident-looking woman who also just happens to be really damn good at her job too, right? After all, she won the Best Director Oscar in 2009 for The Hurt Locker (famously beating her ex-husband, James Cameron, who was also nominated for his work on Avatar), and she might very well win this year for Zero Dark Thirty as well. That’s the buzz anyway.

If Bret Easton Ellis has anything to do with it, however, (and thankfully, he won’t have anything to do with it at all) Kathryn will not win any major awards for her latest effort because the world will realize the unerring truth of his opinion that Kathryn has only risen to the top of her game because she’s a beautiful woman. In fact, Bret further postulates that if Kathryn were a dude, people would have barely taken any notice of her films at all. Even Point Break? Them’s fighting words.

If you’re not familiar with the works of Bret Easton Ellis, he’s the once prolific author of novels like Less Than Zero and American Psycho that were deliciously filled with all manner of biting social satire. To be honest though, Bret hasn’t done much lately except tweet borderline-offensive statements and write The Canyons (Lindsay Lohan’s latest movie). Dude also digs shades. A lot.

Here’s what happened to spark this latest controversy — about a week ago, Bret started tweeting (and he admits now that he was drunk off his ass while doing so) crap like, “Kathryn Bigelow would be considered a mildly interesting filmmaker if she was a man but since she’s a very hot woman she’s really overrated.” And then it kind of snowballed from there. Here are the relevant tweets:

Now Bret has admitted that he was “beyond douchiness” to tweet the things he did about Kathryn’s work, but not really. He still pretty much stands by everything he’s said except for the word “junk,” and he attempts to explain everything in a former apology letter posted to Kathryn on the Daily Beast. God, this sucker is long, but here are the relevant excerpts:

This was my Twitter-casual response to both the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics Circle awarding Bigelow best director of the year, and awarding her new movie Zero Dark Thirty, about the 10-year hunt for Osama bin Laden, Best Picture. I hadn’t seen Zero Dark Thirty but thought, in the Twitter-moment, can it really be that good? Marc Boal and Kathryn Bigelow and another war film?

Everything about their previous effort, The Hurt Locker, seemed to me not bad, exactly, but tepid, simplistic, crude, TV-movie-ish–except for the extended sniper set-piece, ending with a whirlwind of sand blowing across the desert, a haunting visual grace note to a scary, tense scene. The Hurt Locker also felt like it was directed by a man. Its testosterone level was palpable, whereas in Sofia Coppola’s work you’re aware of a much softer presence behind the camera. In 2009, after The Hurt Locker had dominated the Oscars, I had tweeted something along the lines of: the main aspect of The Hurt Locker that interests me most is that it was directed by a “beautiful woman” rather than a man (or something like that). No one really said anything; there was very little favoriting or retweeting or unfollowing then.

The only thing that bothers me about [my tweets] is the use of the word “junk.” No, the movies listed above aren’t junk. Their level of craftsmanship is often quite high. They might be just OK as movies, but they’re certainly not junk in terms of execution. “Junk” is the writer’s exclamation point. It’s the writer’s Twitter flourish to a kind of dead sentence, filled with a list, and an echo of what bothered me about The Hurt Locker–because she was again being sold as the front-runner for perhaps her second directing Oscar with what looked like a very similar film. And what point was I trying to make exactly? I mean, what “visionary” filmmaker ever wins an Oscar? So what if competent technicians usually win it? That’s why the Oscars exist. So: I don’t really like any of the above films–and except for the use of the word “junk” I’m fine with that tweet (it’s not gender specific–it’s specifically about Bigelow’s work).

Twitter seems like a writer’s funhouse to me, not something I’d use “seriously” to “hurt” someone. I don’t want to hurt anybody. And I’m not even saying that Kathryn Bigelow was hurt or even noticed the tweets or even cared. I imagine her balls are bigger than that. I thought that in the Bigelow tweets people might find a certain truth (Yes, Bret! Tell us the truth! You’d know!) about the hypocrisy of the world, of the Hollywood mindset, beautiful women in the movie biz, reverse sexism, etc. But they ultimately revealed a much more layered sexism that, I guess I thought as a gay man, I could get away with since my supposed vitriol about Bigelow was coming from another “oppressed” class. But in 140 characters it didn’t land that way.

I’ve taken a lot of hits in my career–they bounce off. The armor was built so long ago that I now assume everyone else in the public eye can handle it when they’re shot at. But the outcry over the Bigelow tweets was eye-opening to me in a way that nothing else has ever been. I got it. I heard it. I looked back at what I was doing with those tweets (quickly, unconsciously, hurriedly, drunkenly) and I have to admit they simply back-fired. Which is why I’m writing this. No one asked me to write this. I simply write something like this when I’m in pain. And I’ve been slowly feeling a painfulness when reading all of the articles reacting to those tweets.

The American press’s reaction to the Bigelow tweets was swift and overwhelming. Without reading the news I could still feel it swirling in the air because everyone around me was talking about it. It was by far the most sustained attack on anything I had tweeted about. What was odd about the collective anger was that the tweets were solely about daunting, glamorous Kathryn Bigelow–they were not directed at women everywhere, yet women united and seemed to bond over what they perceived as both a much broader and more personal “attack” (a word used often in the articles in the days that followed). What started bothering me was: what does my thinking Bigelow is physically hot have to do with anything? What point was I trying to make with that? That her success is due to her physicality? Was there anyway to get my real thoughts and feelings through in 140 characters and in a coherent and intelligent manner? Or do 140 characters (or less) determine that what you’re trying to say is sometimes going to come off as shallow, or mean-spirited, or wrong?

Okay, one decent thing I can say about Bret Easton Ellis in this situation is that at least he didn’t pull a Chris Brown and delete his Twitter account in a fit of childish anger after the controversy hit. Still, Bret appears to be blaming the medium instead of the message that his tweets sent. Somehow, he feels like the fact that he was confined to a series of 140 character tweets is an excuse for the fact that he explicitly said that Kathryn is only considered a great director because she’s a hot chick. Also, the fact that Bret is a gay male is supposed to have some effect on how we interpret his sexist words, I guess. Whatever.

Ultimately, Bret might admit to being “in pain” over the reaction to his words, but he still doesn’t get why his statements were offensive, and in a column that spans over 2000 words, he’s still failed explain his point more fully. As for Bret’s excuse that alcohol was to blame for his tweets, he may just be one of those people whose true personality is merely revealed by the hard stuff. As in, he’s probably always a bit of a douche, and the hard douche comes out with the hard liquor. Who knows? Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how celebrities act out on Twitter (i.e., Eli Roth and his tissue evidence) and then are somehow surprised when people notice and make a big deal out of it. With 365,489 followers, you’d think that Bret Easton Ellis would realize that at least a few of his followers are reading and retweeting everything that he tweets.

I completely agree! We need more women behind the camera and in the writing room. When men write screenplays, on average, the characters are only 23% female. When women write screenplays, on average 49% of the characters are female.

See Jane is a great organization created by Geena Davis that explores the profound lack of female representation in tv and film. The numbers are quite shocking.

I agree, GoodCapon. I don’t think Bret Easton Whatever needs to s%^$ all over her and her work, but the Hurt Locker was good, but perhaps not the Holy Grail of movies it was made out to be. And yeah, I think she got the Oscar for it bc she’s female. Zero Dark Thirty looks way better than Hurt Locker, and I think some people are kicking themselves for giving Bigelow the Oscar too soon.

@Goodcapon @pinkgiraffe Thats bullshit. Plenty of times a movie that wasnt the holy grail have won the oscars and no one discredits them. But because its a woman people make gender a target. I hate attititudes like this.

I didn’t raise the gender issue in my post so apologies for the misunderstanding. I don’t think it’s about her gender though; I think it’s more a spouse vs spouse issue. Had the situation been reversed, and James Cameron was the underdog director for THL while Kathryn Bigelow was the blockbuster guru I think Cameron still would’ve won. Everyone likes underdogs.

You know what? Some people would have argued that the lesser movie won still. Camerons movie was innovative visually but lacking in other departments. I dont think cameron was the obvious second choice. It was just that the tabloids liked the angle of a former married couple competing. Its a taboid friendly angle. That year saw more big hitters like tarantino and cohen brothers in competition and an education had a female director. Come to think of it, when you mention Cameron. Titanic must be one of the most over rated oscar winners ever. Now we didnt get anyone complaining he won because he is man. Lets leave gender out of it!

Tosser.
That doesn’t read as an apology IMO. It’s more like “sorry you didn’t completely understand what I said, now I’ve got to ramble at you about the semantics of the word ‘junk’ whilst not really apologising to a kickass filmmaker because I’m majorly pissed off The Canyons hasn’t been nominated for anything”.

haha exactly. seems to me the counterargument is if bigelow were ugly would she have won awards? probably not unfortunately. its a double sexism wammy women deal with. she’s blamed because she’s pretty, and therefore accomplishing more than she’s due simply because of her looks, but if she were ugly, she’s be penalized because of that too and probably never would have gotten anywhere unfortunately. sexism is a shitty multilayered thing, and we dont need douches with 3 names ‘helping out’ with their mindless drivel. Ive never seen a writer do such a terrible job trying to explain himself.

actually I really dont think so. she’s got wrinkles in all the right places, her teeth arent fake veneers or even bleached. she has good skin and good bone structure and even features that keeps her skin hanging right, and she’s obviously naturally slim and tall (size of feet). bigelow strikes me as a woman who’s kind of always just looked good with minimal effort.

@bros I agree. Kathryn doesn’t look like someone who’s been tweaked – maybe a bit of botox but nothing major. She still has wrinkles and imperfect teeth and anyway, she’s a director, not an actress, so she’s not under pressure to pretend to be 29 forever. I get the impression that she doesn’t much care about fashion or appearances, and has to be coerced to put on a fancy frock for red carpet events.

I agree with him in one thing, she is overrated. But I say that in a casual conversation with friends, and also, I am not famous. But he is a famous writer who is expresing such an opinion in internet, he should know better and be more careful. Do people lose their sense of reality and social manners when they tweet?

She is very overrated, in my personal opinion and his statements are 100% correct. Why should he not express himself just because he’s a famous writer? Why are people getting thier panties in a twist? If he’s so stupid why do people take it so personally? This is only HIS OPINION.

And may I ask why “there should be more women writers/directors in Hollywood” should that not be “there should be more GREAT writers/drectors in Hollywood”?? We can all agree with that, no? And an Oscar means nothing. Just nothing.

@ blaugaro And Easton Ellis isnt overrated? The man hasnt written a good book in two decades,and he has never really written a good movie. He had a fit recently because he wasnt chosen to write the script for fifty shades of grey which he had campaigned for on twitter for months. Instead they chose a young female scriptwriter. Of course bret preceded to attack her as well. This is nothing but sour grapes by a bitter old man. Bigelow is by no means my faveorite director but she is more than competent and certainly a lot better at making movies than Easton Ellis.

@vanillaDeeLite Why should we listen to the drunk rantings of a man whose only screenwriting credits are the informers and a movie starring Lindsay Lohan and a porn star?

You can choose notto listen obvi. I just find it so sillly how upset people are getting. You seem to have no trouble saying how awful he is but he is not allowed to voice his personal opinion? I mean? You have never written anything of worth so why does your opinion matter on BEE? See how that can go round and round?

Wow. He is a complete C-nut, isn’t he? The Hurt Locker was an awesome film (Renner!!!) and KB is a fantastic director. He’s a tool who just got lucky with one book – that to be honest, isn’t that well written anyway. A-hole.

I have read almost all of his stuff, and yet can’t figure out why. Something draws me in to this narcissistic asshole. His female characters are one-dimensional cardboard cutouts. American psycho especially is one of the hardest things I have ever read in terms of actually getting through it. But yet I read. I think he is probably just an aging old queen, horrified that he has basically become irrelevant . Unless you count tweeting and LL relevant.

I have only seen American Psycho the movie, not read any of his novels but if they didn’t screw with it too much … yeah. Women are not his bffs, are they? I’m not really surprised by his comments. When it comes to his novels, is AS anything to go by?

Anyway, I think it’s funny that he seems to suggest if a woman is behind the camera, you should “feel” a feminine presence or touch or whatever. Why? If the movie is good, it’s good. If I “feel” a feminine presence, fine. Most of the time though I’m thinking “Oh Lord, enough with the male perspective already. Put your testosterone away!”

Btw, since when do hot women directors have an advantage??? Is he deluded? Off the top of my head, I can barely come up with five female directors total, hot or not. That should show this d-bag how H’wood works. Ugh.

“Anyway, I think it’s funny that he seems to suggest if a woman is behind the camera, you should “feel” a feminine presence or touch or whatever.”

I actually agree with this sentiment. It works both ways. Female directors tend to be lighter, more nuanced. Take the first TWILIGHT. directed by a woman, more poetic than the material has any right to be. The next 4 directed by men. More ham fisted, the nuances lost.

Is it a gender specific thing? may be it is and may be it isn’t. I blame experience. Many female directors tend to work on films that ascew to a female audience. That requires more nuance than male. ONLY a male director could have come up with TRANSFORMERS.

KB is unique in that she is the only successful action director that can beat the men at their game. Her films have a very masculine feel to them. Her female characters are always the weakest link. And she tends to stick with subjects that are less appealing to a female audience.

American Psycho was actually directed by a woman, even though this movie had already lots of violence against women, I think they still left out lots of the graphic violence. IMO the movie was well done considering the material, it was a character study of a sociopath but at the same time not glorifying violence against women.

…he doesn’t identify himself as gay nor should you – be respectful of that if nothing else. The Canyons is not new, it’s actually a short story he penned sometime ago. And why should anyone have to apologize for their opinion of a director? Really…just seems ridiculous.

And quite ironic when people on this site say really mean things about people all the time and when they are called on it retort with “Ths is MY OPINION. This is CELEBITCHY.” Just because you don’t agree with his opnion doesn’t mean t’s not valid or he needs to shut up.

The big difference is that people on Celebitchy are anonymous and the polar opposite of famous. No one cares what we say here. Our comments don’t get tweeted or shared worldwide. And reporters certainly don’t give a damn, either.

Ellis is perfectly free to express his opinions. Others are perfectly free to share their opinions about his remarks. Let me emphasize what should be obvious: freedom of speech is a two-way street.

If someone is blunt enough to publicly say or do something that can be negatively received, he/she should be prepared to face any backlash that results. Face the consequences of your behavior. It’s called being an adult.

You mentioned others getting their panties in a twist, but your multiple comments on this particular thread suggest you’re a bit emotionally invested in what complete strangers have said about Ellis.

vanilladeelite. of course he is free to express his opinion, which he does on a regular basis on his twitter And people are free to express their opinions about him right? Bigelow of course is not the first successful individual he has tore into, so i sense a pattern here. Bitter comes to mind.
But in this case he is wrong, if it was just about awarding it to a female they could have given it to “An education” written, produced and directed by females. so his arguments doesnt even make sense, he is acting as if Bigelows movie was the only female contribution amongst the nominees that year..

He did ID himself as gay, and the apology should have been about the sexist comment, not his opinion that she is overrated. No one would have been yelling at him if he just stopped at “overrated.” Instead he made it about her gender. I, too, think she is overrated but not that she was given an Oscar because of her gender or hotness.

If they wanted to pity-award a woman to end the men-only streak, they could have given it to Coppola.

He’s not even a director, so what the hell does he know about making a film?
Anyway, i didn’t think her films are all that either but I would feel the same about them even if a man had directed them.
The Master is a testament to the art of film making and will stand the test of time, no way can you say the same about her film!

His comments were so rude. Just because he feels its ok to say something, because hes in a minority group. Kathryn is a trailblazer. She was the first women who won best director and that is an amazing acomplisment. There is no room for disrespect from anyone .

I loved The Hurt Locker and it was one of few movies that I actually “own”. I can not wait for Zero Dark Thirty. I do not believe she is overrated and I think she does a hell of a job.

As for Bret, I read all of his novels and in his early years he had a great gift for “social satire” as you stated and American Psycho is one of my favorites from his collection but he fell off so he needs to stop taking that out on someone who is at the top of her game because she is a woman.

Some of his early novels were quite good but his last stuff like lunar park bored the hell out of me. Self indulgent and whiney writing. And to me its funny that he should call someone else work junk. Personally i find him to be a very gimmicky writer who is prone to attention whoring and self promotion like that lohan vehicle with the porn star, quite honestly that movie seems like sensationalist exploitative junk.

I happen to like her films, but if he doesn’t, fine. Just don’t crap on her accomplishments by saying she only got them because Hollywood wants to promote a female director, when the fact that her being one of the few clearly shows the opposite.

I’ve always liked his novels-including recent ones. I never thought of them as literary masterpieces, but more like a Jackie Collins novel-fun and spicy but with a more grittier edge. And like her books, most of them are quite similar. As a person, however, and based purely on interviews, he seems like a curmudgeony old man before his time. His identifying as a gay man in his posting also bewildered me. It doesn’t matter much I guess, but I’ve read time and again that he identifies as a bisexual or won’t label himself at all. Now, in defending his twitter junk, he has to be all ,”I’m gay and a minority too so that should be taken into account.” That’s a bogus “defense” or whatever. Women directors rarely get any love and the film industry is notoriously sexist, so, while not too familiar with this woman’s work, I’m guessing she’s merited her accolades.

not going to bother reading his drivel of an “apology” explaining why it was ok for him to run off at the mouth. wasn’t this whole thing just for publicity since nobody gives a sh*t about him and really haven’t since the early 90s?
i’m not a fan of the kind of movies she makes. that doesn’t mean she got where she is because she is attractive. it didn’t hurt her but that isn’t why she’s respected or why people fight to work with her. as if she gives a rat’s &ss what he thinks.
obviously he’s a miserable p.o.s. because NOBODY asked him what he thinks about her. he wanted the attention because he’s a “brat” in the truest, most terrible since of the word. a pitiful, butt-hurt brat.
must really suck so hard to go from wunderkind to the writer of the canyons that can’t get attention or a mention any other way except making a complete jack-&ss of himself on twitter. ugh.

I too think Kathryn’s a bit overrated (though I HEART Point Break), but it never occurred to me that her Oscar was a pity throw. People liked that movie a lot.

Man, I think he is a terrible writer. I’ve read probably 2, maybe 3 of his novels and only finished one, Glamorama, which is a later one. I can’t finish sloppily written books like his. I think he does sh!t for prose and description and only gets sold because he has somewhat original ideas and does pretty good satire. I’ll give him the social commentary and satire props.

As for the actual craft of writing, he doesn’t have the skill. His little essay was more proof of that. Ugh. Word salad.

BEE has some serious woman issues. His books are filled with senseless, hateful psycho-sexual violence against female characters. His “follow-up” to Less than Zero, Imperial Bedrooms, was a complete snore until the very end where it veered into a stomach-churning, disgusting orgy of sexual violence. I’ll never spend money on anything he’s touched again.

What gets me most about BEEllis is that his characters are meant to be satires of high-functioning sociopathic/narcissistic social elite brats, ie indicting and criticising them, but then he goes ahead AND IS ONE HIMSELF.

It reminds me of the “I’m a nice guy, no really, not like those other guys who don’t feel like me. Oh, look a puppy” lyrics of a certain J Mayer.